New Apple Tablet

[Michael]

Seems like all the blogs are talking about this new Apple product due out at the end of this month.

Apparently, this device is going to save the old-media establishment. :lol:

Suffice it to say that even if this device succeeds, I strongly doubt it will be the cure for the ailing newspaper/magazine business.

Fact is, the reason I don't read newspapers anymore is not because they are expensive or inconvenient (because they aren't really). The fact of the matter is that newspapers target a wide general audience and that bores me. Thus, I don't buy newspapers because their content generally sucks. I may be interested in one or two significant news items, but not 100 pages of drollery packed with advertising (every day!).

I believe I'm not alone in rejecting newspapers on content-quality, rather than price/convenience.

Anyway, I can't see much of a market for this new tablet device, though I could be wrong. Seems like it is just an expensive duplicate of what's already out there (notebooks or kindle readers). But then again, one must never underestimate the passion of the people to desire the purchase of branded gadgets that they don't really need or want! :lol:

That being said, I expected ipods and iphones to be successful. I don't expect this one to be anywhere near as successful.

[drgoodtrips]

I'd say the market is less one of need than one of Apple's creation, which is equal parts fashion and convenience. It's tech-chic to own whatever Apple puts out, and to be seen in Starbucks with it.

That is, Apple does such a good job with branding, that I'd expect them to be able to whiff on usefulness here and there and still enjoy relative success.

[Michael]

I'd say the market is less one of need than one of Apple's creation, which is equal parts fashion and convenience. It's tech-chic to own whatever Apple puts out, and to be seen in Starbucks with it.

That is, Apple does such a good job with branding, that I'd expect them to be able to whiff on usefulness here and there and still enjoy relative success.
I don't doubt you are correct here. Apple is very successful at getting people to pay premium prices for its products so they can show-off that they have them!

Indeed, we have a saleswoman who ditched the supplied laptop computer the company gave her and bought her own Apple laptop at top dollar. All to read/type emails with. And yes, she does like her Starbucks! :lol:

My point is about the 'old media' who apparently are Jobs' partners on this project and believe that this gadget will somehow save the old media empire business model (the way iTunes 'saved' the music industry).

[Greendruid]

This is interesting. I was watching an old episode of Babylon 5 and part of the background to a conversation was that the two conversants were recycling their personalised editions of Universe Today and the wall-mounted recycling/printing device was prompting them about which personalised sections they wanted for the current edition. This would probably be useful to me because I like the "feel" of a newspaper, save for the product it's usually made on. I wonder ...

[Michael]

This is interesting. I was watching an old episode of Babylon 5 and part of the background to a conversation was that the two conversants were recycling their personalised editions of Universe Today and the wall-mounted recycling/printing device was prompting them about which personalised sections they wanted for the current edition. This would probably be useful to me because I like the "feel" of a newspaper, save for the product it's usually made on. I wonder ...

The idea of personalized editions with newspapers just means they pick and choose amongst the stuff they carry which stuff you are most interested in.

Thus, even 'personal editions' still shovel the same content crap but with less of it. That's always been the flaw of the newspaper model - the content crap for a mass general audience just isn't attractive at all once the internet came along and created nich audiences. Newspapers will survive only when they cater to niches. There is no general audience anymore - it just doesn't exist (it evaporated).

[drgoodtrips]

I wonder if the general reader of the newspaper never really existed. I think of myself in days gone by, reading the paper. Generally, I'd read the sports section, the front page sections about politics, a bit of the business section, and anything involving technology or science. I always skipped the "living" and "tempo" sections or whatever they were called. Same for any celebrity news, human interest stories, or what have you.

Inasmuch as I observed anyone reading papers, it always seemed the same. Everyone just picked out the stuff they liked and discarded what they didn't. It seems to me that Michael is right - newspapers sold only because there was no better alternative.

It sort of reminds me of the "networks" trying to stay relevant (NBC, ABC, CBS) now that television consumption isn't a simple matter of choosing between a few stations. They're suffering from death by a thousand paper cuts, so to speak, with specific channels like History, Cooking, Science, etc taking various offerings away from them.

[Michael]

Yes, I think "no other option" was a key part of newspaper success in the past.

I think the reason newspapers were fairly successful (in days gone by) is because their model of home-delivery of a physical object suited or facilitated the newspaper being read exactly the way you describe. One person in the household might want the sports/finance section, a different person in that same household might want the comics or lifestyle section.

That model is not available with internet distribution because the market is broken up into 'niches' now.

One must offer a niche product or a general product. There is no halfway between. And general products are out of fashion with the niche-filled internet.

[Michael]

Apparently Microsoft is rolling out a similar tablet product.

And it is to be noted that both Apple and Microsoft prevously issued 'tablet' type products during the 1990s that were miserable failures.

Should be interesting to see what happens this time round.

[Zarquon]

Apparently Microsoft is rolling out a similar tablet product.

And it is to be noted that both Apple and Microsoft prevously issued 'tablet' type products during the 1990s that were miserable failures.

Should be interesting to see what happens this time round.
As the Kindle has proved(or so the media says), the digital reading experience has considerably improved, the internet is far more pervasive and purchasing content from it mainstream, and instead of trying to replace books this time their intent appears to be to complement them rather than arrogantly aim at replacing them(Remember iBooks?). They're even trying to make these readers replicate the experience of reading a book/news- paper, magazine.

[Michael]

As the Kindle has proved(or so the media says), the digital reading experience has considerably improved, the internet is far more pervasive and purchasing content from it mainstream, and instead of trying to replace books this time their intent appears to be to complement them rather than arrogantly aim at replacing them(Remember iBooks?). They're even trying to make these readers replicate the experience of reading a book/news- paper, magazine.

Which is why I think these tablets are going to fail.

Traditional magazines and newspapers are dying for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the internet. They are dying because the mass audience that they are built on doesn't appear to exist any more.

Any review of newspaper/magazine circulation data can prove this - they started their downward revenue trajectories back in the late 1970s and early 1980s more than fifteen years before the advent of the world-wide-web.

Ergo, a fancy new electronic version of the same old newspaper/magazine content on some fancy new electronic device (that will not be cheap) isn't likely to make any difference at all to the established overall trend.

This is a classic case of 'supply' trying to create 'demand'. For anyone who follows classical economic theory, the fallacy of that logic is obvious. No one I know is standing around saying, "gosh, I sure wish I could get a fully interactive copy of the NY Times on a specialized electronic device".

[Zarquon]

Which is why I think these tablets are going to fail.

Traditional magazines and newspapers are dying for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the internet. They are dying because the mass audience that they are built on doesn't appear to exist any more.

Any review of newspaper/magazine circulation data can prove this - they started their downward revenue trajectories back in the late 1970s and early 1980s more than fifteen years before the advent of the world-wide-web.

Ergo, a fancy new electronic version of the same old newspaper/magazine content on some fancy new electronic device (that will not be cheap) isn't likely to make any difference at all to the established overall trend.

This is a classic case of 'supply' trying to create 'demand'. For anyone who follows classical economic theory, the fallacy of that logic is obvious. No one I know is standing around saying, "gosh, I sure wish I could get a fully interactive copy of the NY Times on a specialized electronic device".
You may be right(for the West, here newspapers are booming), my point was only about the devices and how they appear to have taken off this time.

[Michael]

You may be right(for the West, here newspapers are booming), my point was only about the devices and how they appear to have taken off this time.
Yes, newspapers there are booming because the mass of the citizenry does not own three television sets, two radios, a land-line, cell phone, laptop, blackberry, desktop computer and gaming console as they do here.

Its all about the 'maturity' of a market. North America and Europe are mostly 'mature' markets where everybody already has lots of stuff. Everywhere else is following the exact same trends, just a few years behind and occasionally doing some technology jumps and skipping a stage, but still, the same patterns will eventually follow for the same reasons.